uld be burning a lot of stuff. So the climate models assume more people equals more burning. That's a basic part of the models.

But it turns out that when you look at the ice samples, the more humans there are, the less biomass there is that's burned. It's opposite. So one of the key assumptions that people equals more burning and that's fed into the model is opposite according to these new studies. Now again, does it mean the new study is correct and all the things in the model are incorrect? I don't know that. I'm just saying that one part of science that should be taken as credibly as the rest probably is saying that they got that big variable opposite.

So suppose there were only two problems with the models that have lots of variables and suppose the only two problems were they got this biomass thing backwards and they got the CO2 doesn't do anything after it reaches a certain saturation. What if they got those two things wrong? Well then the entire models are nothing. Garbage.

Now let me say something again that if you're not convinced yet, oh I'm going to wear you down. It goes like this. There is no such thing as accurate data for anything that matters. If it doesn't matter or it's something we all observe like yes there's a hurricane, yes the news says there's a hurricane, science says there's a hurricane. Okay, the easy stuff we all agree that's real. But all the stuff that really has big dollars involved, it's never real. You can't have data collection and big dollars involved at the same time. But unfortunately that's the only way anything happens because the only people willing to spend all the money it would take to collect data on something as big as the climate would be people who have a lot of money involved. So there isn't actually a system in place in the world to get accurate data about anything that matters. Think about that. It's not a set of accidents. It's not like well we looked at this data and it turns out that somebody involved was gaming the system but then we looked at some other data. Ah it turned out there was something wrong with that data too. And you say to yourself wow I'm sure all the rest of the data in the world is good but these two look like they were wrong. No. There is no way that it's even possible for data to be correct about anything important because the people presenting it have an interest and they're only going to show it to you if they can make that data look whatever it is that they need it to look.

So now there's no such thing as accurate data about anything that matters. And don't be confused by the data on things that don't matter. There's probably plenty of data on things that don't matter to anybody politically or monetarily. But if it matters and there's money involved, it's never real. It can't be. Design is destiny. The design of the system is the only people who collect the data are the people who have a lot of money involved in it being one way. That's our system.

If you suppose you designed that on paper and you presented it to somebody as a way to run the world, suppose nobody had ever collected any data for anything before and you said you know what if we started collecting data in this world and we applied some science we'd be way ahead. So they come up with the idea of collecting data and they say all right here's how we're going to do it. It's going to be expensive to collect any data that really matters and it's going to move the needle. So who's going to be doing the collecting? The government. Oh no, the government might be biased. You know, might be Democrats in office versus Republicans. You can't really trust the government with data. So then I'd say wait, so you're saying that all information that comes from the government will be fake? Oh yes, of course it will. Of course it will. Because it's either Democrats in charge or Republicans in charge and neither of them have an interest in telling you the truth, right? They have a gigantic monetary and other career interests in telling you the truth they want you to hear.

Do you think we could see that effect in the real world if the government has an incentive to lie to you all the time? Well let's look at some data. Have you heard about the jobs reports that are being revised by over 800,000 because they were all fake? Turns out it's way worse than that because we might be looking at jobs that were created as fake jobs to get PPP money during the pandemic. So there's some suggestion that there might be 5 million fake jobs because people pretended they had employees so they could get money from the government and pretended they had companies. So some people think that our jobs numbers are completely just ridiculous and just made up and now they're being revised. So that's exactly what you would expect to happen if in fact your design of how you collect data was wrong and delegated to the people who had the most interest in lying to you.

The current situation, let's see what else. How about our numbers about crime? Do you think our crime statistics that come from the government are pretty good, pretty accurate? No, because some people stopped collecting crime and then they started just making stuff up. And I think we're all aware at this point that the crime numbers are made up. Would you agree? And even when they're not made up they put it in the wrong context like comparing to the pandemic versus not the pandemic which is no comparison at all. So we don't have jobs numbers that are real and we don't have crime numbers that are real and it's because the government is in charge of those numbers. And there is no scenario in which the government wants you to have real numbers. Every scenario no matter who's in charge they want it to look like it's good for their team, period.

So if you were to ask private companies to get you information, let's say drug companies to do drug studies, what should you expect if you were going to put that design, if you were going to design that system on paper? All right, the people who could make a billion dollars if the drug is safe are in charge of telling you that the data says it's safe. What do you expect? Yeah, the design of the system guarantees that all important data is fake. We've designed the system. See you have to understand that it's a system design problem. It's not a bunch of people who have made a mistake coincidentally in each of these important domains. That's not what's going on. There's no mistakes happening. People have a great interest in making assumptions that will drive the numbers the way they want them to be driven. And whoever collects numbers gets to make the assumptions. "Oh these numbers are good enough. These numbers don't look dependable to me. I'll leave these out." That's